0
Cho7712 Posted 13 years ago
Grammar
coordination
In the following sentence,
J.R walks and talks like a true Texan (quoted from Radford's
book of syntax.)
The author says, V and V is coordinated.
That is to say, this sentence is only interpreted as follows: J.R walks like a true Texan as well as talking like a true Texan.
Is it right?
According to the author's view, V and VP cannot be conjoined,
so that the following understanding is just not right at all:J.R walks and J.R talks like a true Texan.
Is it the right thinking?
J.R walks and talks like a true Texan (quoted from Radford's
book of syntax.)
The author says, V and V is coordinated.
That is to say, this sentence is only interpreted as follows: J.R walks like a true Texan as well as talking like a true Texan.
Is it right?
According to the author's view, V and VP cannot be conjoined,
so that the following understanding is just not right at all:J.R walks and J.R talks like a true Texan.
Is it the right thinking?
Top answer
R talks like a true Texan. ) is just logically unsound. Coordinating conjunctions have to join the same or equivalent parts of speech.
- R talks like a true Texan.
- ) is just logically unsound.
- Coordinating conjunctions have to join the same or equivalent parts of speech.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
5 Answers
0
cho7712so that the following understanding is just not right at all:J.R walks and J.R talks like a true Texan.Yes, that sentence (J.R walks and J.R talks like a true Texan.) is just logically unsound. Coordinating conjunctions have to join the same or equivalent parts of speech.
00
Thank you for the answer.
But I cannot understand why it should be V and V coordination.
'J.R walks and talks' is no doubt the case.
However, 'J.R walks and talks like a true Texan' looks more like V and VP coordinated. That would be false.
If paraphrased which I myself did it in the first post, it is VPs conjoined not Vs tied together.
(J.R walks like a .... and J.R
But I cannot understand why it should be V and V coordination.
'J.R walks and talks' is no doubt the case.
However, 'J.R walks and talks like a true Texan' looks more like V and VP coordinated. That would be false.
If paraphrased which I myself did it in the first post, it is VPs conjoined not Vs tied together.
(J.R walks like a .... and J.R
00
1. (J.R walks) and (J.R talks like a true Texan.)
Structure: Clause 1 AND Clause 2.
Structure:
Subject - compound verb - predicate. - The predicate completes the compound verb phrase. It goes with both verbs.
3. (J.R wal
Structure: Clause 1 AND Clause 2.
- JR is a man who walks. (He is not in a wheelchair)
- JR is also a man who talks Texan.
Structure:
Subject - compound verb - predicate. - The predicate completes the compound verb phrase. It goes with both verbs.
3. (J.R wal
00
To me, only 2 and 3 are the possible options.
Since I think V and VP cannot be coordinated,
1 and 4 are not the options which can undergo coordination.
What do you think about my opinion that V and VP cannot be conjoined?
It just now strikes me that I've been misled grossly.
As for 2 and 3, Vs are conjoined at the superficial level and
3 represents the deep structure
Since I think V and VP cannot be coordinated,
1 and 4 are not the options which can undergo coordination.
What do you think about my opinion that V and VP cannot be conjoined?
It just now strikes me that I've been misled grossly.
As for 2 and 3, Vs are conjoined at the superficial level and
3 represents the deep structure
00
Grammatically, all the four structures are possible.
But logic has a major role to play too. A good sentence has to be both grammatical and sensible.
But logic has a major role to play too. A good sentence has to be both grammatical and sensible.
0
Related Questions